What's the first thought that comes to mind when you hear the word ANGER?
Frustration? Yelling? Loss of Control? Violence? Maybe fear, silence or
avoidance? All reasonable responses...Or are they? A bit one-sided, for my
taste, that is, the "anger glass" appears "half empty." How about a "half full"
perspective: confrontation, energy, power and tenacity? Or honesty and being
real?

The "half empty" responses, if not totally reasonable, are certainly
representative. These are the words that invariably pour out of my workshop
participants when asked to associate to "anger." To understand the preponderance
of negatives, I ask this follow-up question: "How many people grew up in
families where it truly felt safe and secure expressing your angry feelings as
well as being the target of other people's angry feelings?" In a room of fifty
people, I usually get less than a handful of raised hands, and even some of
those seem to be wavering more than waving confidently. And then, drawing upon
an old New Yorker cartoon, I offhandedly observe: "About the same number of
people who show up for the annual Adult Children of Normal Parents Convention."
Which always gets a knowing laugh.

So maybe all these negative associations are not so surprising considering
most of us didn't have many "healthy anger" role models. But "anger," like most
things in real life, including the short-sited proverbial glass, is often
double-edged -- neither half empty nor half full but half empty and half full.
(Of course, my smart-assed brother knew how to determine whether the glass was
half empty or half full: look for the lipstick stains. Now why didn't I think of
that one first. Sibling rivalry, jealousy, family competition...Me angry?)

I sure am an angry guy. And as a youngster and teen I was a lot angrier. I
mostly bottled it up, back then. Occasionally, I would explode. But the usual
state of affairs, despite endless athletics, was a low grade depression,
difficulty concentrating in school, fear of being bullied, mindless TV watching
and, too often, being anxiously "good." And, then we had a mid-life family
crisis. My father jolted us by separating, returning and entering group therapy
when I was 19. A few years later, I followed his path. And all hell broke loose!
No, not really, but the family atmosphere was radically different. The myth of
anger being only disrespectful, irrational or out of control was being
overthrown. My parents were more openly and honestly fighting. Scary, but
ultimately liberating for all.

Here's a small section of a poetic opus with ten years of hindsight:

What made him break From our mistake Perhaps we'll never know.

But in the wake Of psychic quake The formula to grow. The silence cracks Each spouse attacks The couple hardly known. But on these tracks Of broken backs Emancipation sown!

For me, anger is double-edged. Actually, that's just the beginning.

The Four Angry "I"s

In addition to subjective experience, our language has a unidimensional tilt
when defining anger. According to the The Random House Dictionary of the English
Language: The Unabridged Edition, anger is "a strong feeling of displeasure and
belligerence aroused by real or supposed wrong." However, a clinical description
is broader than a lay one. Anger is a state of heightened activation or arousal
of the autonomic nervous system (for example, increased heart rate, rapid
breathing, flushed face, chest pains, sweaty palms, etc.) that is fueled by our
cognitive - conscious and unknowing - interpretations. You experience those
"Four Angry 'I's," that is, you have a palpable sense of:

1. Injustice. A rule of conduct, a cherished belief or instrumental goal is
being threatened or abused; you see yourself (also others with whom you are
psychologically dependent or connected) as a victim of an injustice, unfairness
or disloyalty. 2. Injury. You feel disrespected, discarded or ignored; there's a
sense of insult and humiliation along with injury -- often psychological, at
times also physical. 3. Invasion. Your freedom, autonomy, boundary and personal
space are perceived to be constricted, disrupted or violated; your identity and
bodily and/or psychological integrity are being threatened or attacked. 4.
Intention. There is an energy and determination to do something about the above
injustices, injuries and invasions; you are ready - reflexively and/or
purposefully - to challenge the status quo.

So anger is a potential range of feelings, from irritation and determination
to outrage and fury. Its breadth, depth, intensity and interactive potential is
often forged by how one looks at the world through his or her "Four Angry 'I's."
As I once wrote:

Anger! That double-edged power source. It's the high octane emotion for
blazing performance and for igniting a legitimate grievance. Yet, when it's
bottled up we smolder away; when we erupt it may engulf us. And, when we are
the target of a volatile flame thrower, there will be scars. (Gorkin, 1986)

A Multifaceted Model

It's time to flesh out and attempt to capture (more likely coax) this wide
ranging, ever changing creature. Let's examine the apparent contradictions
within "anger" and try to make sense of its protean nature and multi-function.
To do this, let me sketch my "Four Faces of Anger" Model. To break out of a
unidimensional box, try thinking about the interpersonal expression of anger
along these two dimensions:

To understand the multifaceted nature of anger expression, let's play "The
Four Faces of Anger Game."

A. Let's start with Box 1. What word comes to mind when you read Purposeful
and Constructive Anger Expression? If a word or phrase doesn't immediately come
to mind, does an image or, even, an example of what you might say when
expressing this kind of anger?

My choice is "Assertion." Are you surprised? So many people associate anger
with yelling and being out of control, that they don't associate assertion and
anger...it's too rational. But expressing anger can happen with a firm,
basically controlled tone of voice and volume, direct eye contact, a confident
posture that's neither aggressively forward nor robotically restrained.

To illustrate the four faces, we'll follow the interaction between a mother
and her eighteen-year-old daughter, after the daughter, having used the family
car, came home late and did not call. Notice how the anger expression changes as
we focus on each interactive "face."

The mother addressing her eighteen-year-old daughter, the following morning:
"I'm angry. I let you have the car Friday night with the understanding you'd be
home by 1:00am. (Author's note: There's been inflation in permissiveness since
the time of Cinderella.) Or, if you were going to be late, we agreed you'd call
beforehand. When I didn't hear from you, I was very worried. What happened? I
want to talk with you about the car borrowing policy, and the consequences if
this happens again." With assertive confrontations, the communicator takes
responsibility for her emotions and clarifies her expectations and limits. While
sometimes requiring premeditation, "I" messages are not necessarily
intellectualized or overly rational. In fact, while typing these two examples,
too bad you couldn't see the motion of my fingers as they firmly rapped, more
than touched, the keyboard. "I" messages are infused with nonverbal cues and
energy.

B. For Box 2, what comes to mind when you read Purposeful and Destructive
Anger Expression? Again, try for a word, image or expressive statement.

My preference is "Hostility." Now hostility can take many guises, from
condescending comments and being highly judgmental, to "scarcasm" and put down
humor, to planning to get even when you feel slighted or injured. And
passive-aggressive lateness or forgetfulness certainly falls under this
category.

In our "taking the car and getting home late vignette," how do you feel about
a mother reacting to her daughter in this manner?: "I can't believe how
irresponsible you were last night. You didn't call. You made me sick with worry.
You expect me to trust you with the car? We'll see when you get the car again,"
said with a sneer and a haughty tone. Quite a difference from the assertive
response. Plenty of those blaming and judgmental, globally hostile, potentially
guilt-inducing "acc-you-sations." Know any such "blameaholics?"

C. For Box 3, what word comes to mind when reading Spontaneous and
Constructive Anger Expression? Many people find this combination a most
challenging association. That's not so surprising when anger is often linked
with being belligerent or dangerously out of control.

Let me reveal my choice by providing some recent historical context. I
suspect you can remember watching or listening to the highly charged Clarence
Thomas-Anita Hill hearings? Do you recall having any strong feelings? Did any
cherished principles seem under attack? Perhaps it stirred some "passionate"
beliefs? That's my association: "Passion."

Now "passion" is a very intriguing word. In fact, let's digress for a moment.
What's the first thought when you read "passion"?: "Intense emotion." "Desire."
"Love." Hey, let's go for the "s"-word. (In my current hometown, Washington, DC,
we know what the "s"-word for passion is..."Senator." And you thought I was
going to say "sex." How could you?) Actually, the "s"-word for passion in most
dictionaries is neither sex nor Senator, nor even "silk," as ventured by one
imaginative workshop participant. The long-awaited, if not long-suffering,
"s"-word for passion is... just that - "suffering." As in the "passion play":
the sufferings of Jesus or, more generically, the sufferings of a martyr.
(Imagine, all this time I never knew my Jewish mother was such a passionate
woman. Just kidding, mom. ;-)

Let's go back to the mother-daughter late night (actually early morning)
interaction. This time from a passionate perspective. Now, however, the mother,
not being able to sleep, meets the daughter at the door, and spontaneously
confronts her: "What the heck happened? I was expecting a call. I'm angry. I'm
up because I was terribly worried and couldn't sleep." After the daughter
attempts a brief explanation (and the mother is assured of her safety) the
mother, aware of her own difficulty listening, as well as her increasingly loud
voice and shaky tone, continues: "I can tell I'm too upset to talk about this
now. I'm glad you're home. I'm going to bed, and we'll discuss this incident,
including rules for using the car, later in the morning."

Passion is sparked by pure emotion and pain. However, there's a spontaneous
response, not a reaction. This person still has a sense of self-integrity and
the other's boundary. Passion with proportion is possible. A key point is that
confrontations don't have to be wrapped up in one setting. Choosing a temporary
retreat for regrouping and refocusing can prove most constructive. This approach
is critical, especially if you have: a) reservations about turning the
confrontation into a "win-lose" or a "right-wrong" battle, b) hope not to damage
the relationship, and c) want both parties to learn and/or gain from the
interaction.

D. Finally, with Box 4, what's your association to Spontaneous and
Destructive Anger Expression? This is perhaps the easiest, as it seems to
conform with most people's concept of anger.

There are many good answers: "Violence." "Screaming." "Hitting." My choice is
"Rage." What's your mental picture of a rage state. Someone who is increasingly
loud, displaying a string of profanities or threats, belligerent body posture,
menacing gestures...blindly out of control. And often feeling victimized,
betrayed and self-righteous about their rage. Of course, don't overlook the
condition of "smoldering rage," with a low threshold for becoming unglued.

Another important clarification involves distinguishing being "outraged" from
being "inraged." (I've coined "inraged" to sharpen the contrast with "outraged"
and to differentiate "inraged" from the more generic "enraged.") When terrorists
blow up a US government building or plant a bomb on an airplane, one is easily
outraged by such unjust, injurious and invasive actions. There is a seemingly
clear, external (criminal) target to which all legal action and sanction should
be and, hopefully, will be directed.

When we are outraged, our emotional reaction is understandable, if not fully
rational; our anger expression, however, if not careful or conscious, can cross
the "constructive" vs. "destructive" boundary line. In fact, returning to our
matrix model, you might visualize "outraged" as being near, if not on, the
border of "passion" and "rage."

In contrast, "inraged," or the Box 4, matrix term "rage," is invariably a
destructive state. The inraged individual's exaggerated emotional reaction is
fueled as much, if not more, by still unresolved hurts and humiliations than by
actual, immediate stimulus-and-response provocation. These never healed wounds
can generate biased perceptions or highly exaggerated interpretations regarding
the infliction of injustices, insults, injuries and invasions. I refer to these
folks as having (or depending on their volatility) being psychic "hot buttons."
They are just waiting, many times wanting, to be set off. And the trigger for a
hot reactor may be trivial, simply an accidental or unintentional glance, word
or touch.

Let's revisit the mother-daughter encounter, for our final, fiery
illustration. The mother, furious at her daughter's late return, explodes: "You
inconsiderate witch. I should slap you silly," while raising her hand, as well
as her voice, in a menacing manner. "I'm here, scared to death, not knowing what
the hell's happened to you. Whether you busted up the car, have been raped? How
the hell should I know. Do you call? No, you couldn't give a G-d damn. I'll fix
your ass later. Get out of my sight."

Whether the first violation of her mother's expectations or (more likely)
not, the mother's reaction is clearly personalized and exaggerated, threatening
and abusive. Her lashing anger especially stings when loaded with cutting
profanity. A tendency for imagining the worst - "catastrophizing" - acutely
heightens mom's anxiety. Not only can't the mother hear her daughter out, she
can't tolerate the sight of her. Actually, she can't stand her own emotions. The
mother may well need to project her own subconscious past associations to
helplessness, panic and being out of control. Sadly, she, herself, has likely
been a target of a volatile parent, spouse or authority figure.

End Game

Four Faces of Anger Matrix with Assertion-Hostility-Passion-Rage in proper
boxes.

Debunking the notion of anger and its expression as being a unidimensional
concept is a fundamental goal of the anger association game. By combining the
"Purposeful"-"Spontaneous" and "Constructive"-"Destructive" dimensions we are
able to generate distinct anger expression profiles: Assertion, Hostility,
Passion and Rage. Hopefully, the four matrix faces and interactive scenarios
provide common sense images and verbal handles for grasping and differentiating
the broad and nuanced emotional-behavioral responses of anger. Clearly, this is
vital for challenging the one-sided, negative image of anger. Perhaps most
important, the "Four Faces of Anger" Model can be a tool for your own, as well
as your clients' understanding and acceptance of the naturalness and power of
aggression and anger expression. And with enhanced awareness, hopefully, we all
will experience and communicate anger in a more responsible and productive
manner.

Next edition I will use an organizational case study - a conflict between a
problematic manager and his assistant - to illustrate the process component of
the "Four Faces of Anger" Model: the matrix as an evolutionary framework for
transforming self-defeating rage, proceeded by imaginative hostility, into
passionate exploration and an assertive plan of action.

The Stress Doc illustrates how anger can be constructive or destructive
depending on whether aggressive energy and motives are acknowledged and
channeled or denied and projected. Role play examples illustrate the difference
between Assertive "I" Messages and Blaming "You"s and offer (mostly useful)
strategies for disarming dysfunctional power struggles.

Alarming "You"s or Disarming "I"s:

Power Struggles vs. Powerful Strategies -- Part I

By Mark Gorkin, LICSW

"The Stress Doc" ™

A challenging aspect of the anger skills component of my "Practicing Safe
Stress" program is helping participants realize that "Assertion" is one of "The
Four Faces of Anger," a model based on whether anger expression is
"Constructive" or "Destructive" and "Purposeful" or "Spontaneous." (If
interested, email stressdoc@aol.com for my Four Faces Model.) The difficulty for
many in linking assertion and anger stems from two erroneous beliefs: a)
assertion is too rational or intellectual to convey real anger and b) anger has
to be loud, emotional and potentially explosive. Actually, when people don't
genuinely acknowledge the aggressive component of their assertive expression,
healthy anger is masked and distorted. The result is often judgmental criticism,
condescending sarcasm or, even, passive-aggressive retaliation. In other words,
an assertive intention regresses into a hostile defense or intimidation. And I
frequently see this reactive transformation with the use of blaming "You"s over
self-acknowledging, responsibility shouldering "I" messages.

Now be honest, under enough stress and frustration, aren't you occasionally a
"blameaholic"? What are some of the more common, judgmental "You" messages or
"acc-you-sations? How about, "It's your fault," "You make me sick," "You
made me do it," "You drive me crazy," "You screwed up" (only one time, of course
not…"You always screw up" or "You never do it right"), "You shouldn't think (or
feel) that way," "You're too sensitive, too moody." And my all time obnoxious
"You" message…"You really disappointed me!," with the guilt toxin just dripping
from self-righteous lips as it surreptitiously seeps deep into the target's
psyche. And the consistent use of abrasive "You" attacks has predictable
consequences: such provocative communication invariably triggers an overt or
covert defensive reaction, withdrawal, intimidation and/or interpersonal power
struggles.

Power Struggle Exercise

In my workshops, I bring out this provocative "you" dynamic through a playful
yet powerful exercise called, "You Can't Make Me!" People pair off, decide who's
Person A, who's Person B. (It has nothing to do with being Type A or Type B.) I
then ask participants to try to imagine one person with whom there is or there
recently has been some interpersonal tension or conflict; someone who has you
clenching your jaws at night or plotting strategy at 3 am. (Of course, a
frequent rejoinder is, "You mean I have to choose just one person!") I encourage
participants to think of the conflict as a power struggle issue. And when asked
to eyeball their opposite number (actually, opposite letter) a tension in the
air begins to build. People get seriously focused or start to squirm. Then come
the instructions: Person A declares, "You Can't Make Me!" Person B counters
with, "Oh Yes I Can (make you)." Clearly it's a clash of polar "You" messages.
The antagonists are to verbal volley for about ten seconds. They can be loud and
abrasive, hostile, whiny or passive-aggressive. The only limit: "You can't get
out of your chair."

Body language is encouraged. And then, after a few back and forths, they can
reach closure, by saying whatever they'd really like to say to their imagined
foe. (X-rated language is discouraged.) However, the x-rated warning may not be
sufficient. Alas, this exercise does pose a risk, especially with the wrong
audience. Let me illustrate.

Unbeknownst to me, just before show time, I received word that my West
Virginia mountain health spa audience was in their third day of a smoking
cessation program. (Talk about, "The Hills Are Alive with the Sound of Manic.")
To harness some of the off the mountain wall energy, I quickly had participants
pair off for the above-mentioned "You Can't Make Me" role-play. Perhaps this was
not my most scintillating leadership moment. You see, with one particular
male-female dyad, provocative tensions were escalating rapidly. Miss A
apparently perceived a little too much sexual intonation into Mr. B's, "Oh, yes
I can! (make you)" Before I could intervene Miss A picks up a glass of ice water
and pours it into Mr. B's lap. Ouch. That's one way of going cold turkey (if not
being one). Trust me, this guy was smoke free for the rest of the week.

This role interaction while intense is usually not so dramatic. A few
participants just laugh - some feel the exercise artificial or absurd. Others
laugh nervously at the prospect of projecting or receiving raw aggression. The
decibel level rise in the room (usually to an ambiance of barely controlled
chaos) speaks volumes about the group's involvement with the exercise.
Considering the fabricated nature of the role play, why do so many fairly
quickly put on their game face and register power struggle emotions and
expressions? I've come up with three "C" factors:

1) Who is in "Control"? This relates to the parent-child, authority dynamic;
who sets the physical and emotional boundaries, for example, regarding
acceptable and unacceptable behavior,

2) The second "C"-word is also a family relationship dynamic -- sibling
rivalry. The key word is "Competition" - who's better, who is the favorite and,
finally,

3) The dynamic of "Culture" - varying role prescriptions and expectations,
differences and misunderstandings of verbal and non-verbal meaning and social
protocol.

While all three "C"s can fuel intense conflict and power clashes, I suspect
the most universal trigger is the issue of "Control." Why? Wrestle with this
question: When do profound issues of control first surface in
families?...Certainly by toilet training. The reality is we all have a history
of personal and interpersonal control issues along with autonomy-intimacy
boundary struggles no matter how nice or civilized, rebellious or intimidated,
mature or repressed we have become.

Stress Doc's Disarming Demonstration

So how does one resist the invitation to the power dance, especially a
dysfunctional struggle; how does one transcend a potential vicious cycle of
interaction? By way of illustration, let's return to the "You Can't Make Me"
scenario. As part of the post-role play, group reflection on the exercise
segment, I select a sturdy looking audience member and ask him or her to take my
offering of an invisible rope. (I learned a not soon to be forgotten lesson: if
you select a female, don't ever refer to her as "a big woman." Believe me,
"Never again!") As the participant gazes at me quizzically, holding the other
end of the imaginary rope, I challenge my opposite to, "Pull hard; come on, give
it a good pull" The public nature of the challenge invariably has my unwitting
antagonist grimacing, straining and pulling intently. And just as it seems they
are about to overpower me, to win this virtual-physical contest of wills and
won'ts…I pose the unexpected: "What happens if I decide to 'drop the rope'?" The
tension is over. My partner in conceptual crime usually grins sheepishly or
mimes falling over. The audience breaks out in "aha" smiles if not "ha-ha"
laughter. Instead of proving who can pull harder in some dysfunctional,
ego-driven contest, one party purposefully lets go of the self-defeating game,
steps outside the predictable boundary lines by dropping the rope. It's a sign
of maturity, not of wimpiness.

To clinch the strategic concept another question follows: "How do you drop
the rope in the "You Can't Make Me/Oh Yes I Can (make you)" Exercise? Now it's
time to integrate the art and skill of letting go and employing "I" message
communication. But first, let me acknowledge that using "I" messages effectively
require some doing. I recall a supervisor in a team building workshop asking:
"Is this an example of an "I" message?…'I think you're wrong!'" No, Ms. P that's
not an "I" message; that's a sneaky, blaming "You" message. An "I" message
response might be: "I disagree," "Here's what I know or what I believe," "Here's
how I see it" or, even "My data says otherwise."

Okay, back to the role-play. How's this for a reply to the testy, win-lose
"You can't make me"? "Whether I can or can't make you, that's not where I'm
coming from. I need your help. If I'm bugging you or something's bugging you,
let's talk about it. If we're going to get the project done (meet our goal, the
deadline, etc.) we need to be on the same page; we need to pull together, not be
pulling apart."

Drop the rope; not right or wrong. And another Stress Doc immunization-aphormation
that protects against or disentangles enmeshed egos and facilitates letting go
comes to mind: Difference and Disagreement =/= Disapproval and Disloyalty! And,
of course, when dealing with an incorrigible dominance-submission egotist, find
solace in the words of 20th c. French novelist, Andre Gide: One must allow
others to be right…It consoles them for not being anything else. Words
for…Practicing Safe Stress!

Stay tuned for Part II of this power struggle treatise.

Mark Gorkin, LICSW, "The Stress Doc" (TM), the Internet's and America
Online's "Online Psychohumorist" (TM), is a syndicated columnist and nationally
recognized speaker/training consultant specializing in Stress, Anger Management,
Reorganizational Change, Team Building and HUMOR! For more information, call
202-232-8662.

Building on the role of "You" Vs "I" messages in power struggles in Part I,
the Stress Doc now illustrates the passion and strategic purposefulness of a
"higher power" response in the face of provocation. He closes with a five-step
confrontation that's more than a good IDEA.

Transforming Aggression with Higher Power "I"s: Part II

An IDEAL Method of Engagement

Part I of this two-part series explored how anger can be constructive or
destructive depending on whether aggressive energy and motives are acknowledged
and channeled or denied and projected. A role-play example illustrated the
difference between Assertive "I" Messages and Blaming "You"s. In addition, a
"drop the rope" strategy was provided for tactfully disarming dysfunctional
power struggles. However, "I" messages don't just gracefully disarm or mollify
an antagonist. When delivered with passion and purpose, whether firmly or
quietly, strategic "I"s can, in communicational judo-like fashion, use hurtful
or aggressive energy to unbalance an antagonist. You might even knock an
adversary off their high horse or hostile path. Here's an instructive tale.

Disarm Hostility with Passionate Honesty

Years back, I was consulting with the supervisory staff of the Department of
Human Services of a rural Maryland County. Because of the distance, the
workshops were held monthly. The previous month, a male supervisor had
confronted, somewhat pointedly, a female colleague during a drawing exercise. I
belatedly realized we had not fully processed the engagement and decided to
revisit the encounter. At the following meeting, the male supervisor, in charge
of case management, expressed appreciation when I acknowledged my sense of
"unfinished business." He recognized that his actions could have been construed
as an attack and he apologized.

The female supervisor, working in accounting, after perfunctorily
acknowledging the apology, did not want to discuss the issue further. She was
more concerned about the lack of clear communication and insufficient
cooperation with her supervisory colleagues and their staff. Forms and reports
were not being completed in a timely and thorough manner.

We discussed this and other issues and then took a break. During the recess,
I approached the female supervisor. Realizing that some people prefer not to
open up conflicts in a group forum, I again asked if she had any thoughts about
the previous drawing exercise encounter or earlier discussion. Immediately I
elicited an incredulous air and jaundiced eye: "You sure know how to talk things
to death, don't you." Now that's an attacking "You" message. After recoiling,
then recovering from that sudden punch in the psychic gut, I managed a reply: "I
just think clearing the air of unresolved conflict is important." I reaffirmed
her expressed concern about communication breakdowns and wanting more
cooperation from the staff.

are ready to expel the "B"-word: "You witch!"

(I was always better at rhyming than spelling.)

Somehow, my higher power descended. From a

painful grimace sprung an impassioned, "That hurts.

I feel like I've been stabbed in the back!" Finally, I

had her attention. Having instinctively pushed back,

now there was purpose, if not method, to my madness:

"I don't think you realize how powerful a communicator you can be.

But when you shoot out those darts you're pretty intimidating. You

will turn folks off, or scare them off. Cooperation isn't going to be

the first thing on peoples' minds."

In hindsight, I had used an effective confrontation. I immediately and
visually let her know her attacks were not acceptable. I demonstrated the power
of letting go of a "Tough John Wayne or Rambo" persona; I acknowledged feeling
hurt. Her lashing out wasn't just self-protective and dismissive. Also, I had
used an "I" message to spotlight the hostile nature and cutting impact of her
words and tone: "I feel like I've been stabbed in the back."

At the same time, I managed to provide a little ego stroking by acknowledging
that she was a powerful communicator. And, in fact, this somewhat reserved woman
was not fully aware of her passive-aggressive and offensive style when dealing
with conflict, nor of her potential for intimidation and inflicting pain. Her
modus operandi: I feel threatened, so therefore I'm entitled to react. (Reaction
comes from a threatened place, a place fired by old fears and critical voices; a
response comes from your center, a place of integrity, clarity and
present-focus. For more on reaction and response, see I.8, "Disarming a Critical
Aggressor.")

I was pretty clean and clear with my anger using an immediate, graphic and
emotion-laden response. I also explained the consequences of her behavior, even
managing to provide some ego-boosting and face-saving observation along with my
constructive criticism. When giving feedback, try to combine the bad news with
some good news, if at all possible. And the impact was noticeable. For the
remainder of the workshop, this supervisor was positively engaged with the group
and me.

The Doc's 5 Step Constructive Confrontation

Let me close this lesson with a Five Step Approach to Effective "I" Messages
using a hypothetical exchange between a supervisor and an employee to illustrate
this sequential process. The Supervisor (S) encounters Employee (E)
in the hall. S. has not been able to get feedback from E. on the
status of an important work project. The scenario raises key
communication/confrontation issues as well as follow-up statements and
questions.

Use an "I" Statement, Question or Observation

Begin your exchange with an "I" message: "I'm concerned," "I'm confused,"
or "I'm frustrated." Also acceptable as a leading question: "What the heck
is going on?" (As long as you control your volume, you can even say "hell"
if your perplexity is truly justified ;-). But don't use four letter words
to intimidate or to exploit a power differential.) Observational comments
can be effective: "I noticed you broke the pencil. Are you upset about
something?"

S: Hey, E., I need to talk with you. I'm frustrated (or confused; again,
depending on the interpersonal context you may need to be more or less
tactful).

Describe the Problem Specifically

S: I've asked you three times this week for the status of the systems
report and I haven't received the report or any response. What's going on
here?

Avoid provocative, judgmental "acc-you-sations": "Why are you avoiding
me?" or "You never get your work in on time."

Explain Your Upset -- Effects and Expectations

a) Effects. S: Not having your report, I wasn't able to present
the latest data at the branch meeting. We had to postpone making a decision
that is time-sensitive. ("And you made me look like a fool in front of the
other supervisors." No, resist such language. That's a blaming "You"
message.)

S: We really need the data. I want to meet tomorrow morning at 9:00 to
discuss where you are with the project. I want us to establish a realistic
time line for completion.

Acknowledge Other and Ask for Input

Explore where the other person is coming from; how do they see their
workload demands on time and energy, etc.

S: I know you are working on several important projects concurrently.
Tell me what's on your plate. Then we'll need to set priorities and
upgrade the importance of this branch data project. If you are having
a hard time juggling priorities or if you anticipate a deadline problem, I’d
to know ahead of time.

Understandably, people often ask why I don't initiate this problem-solving
encounter from this more empathic, less assertive, perspective. It's a
good question. Having lived in Washington, DC these past nine years
influences my answer. Frankly, I see too many folks impatient, under
stress, caught up in their own self-importance, who say things like, "I know
you've got a lot of stuff on your plate, but can't you get that work on
Project B done!" And it is said less as a question and more with a
condemning tone. This kind of "scarcasm" will only escalate tensions.
When folks are under stress or feeling time-pressured, I'd rather they not
cover up their frustration with an intellectualized, pseudo concern.
Use an "I" message to be up front and clear with your concern or upset.
Then, genuinely thank the person for listening to you (and your three "I"
message steps). Remember, it's not easy listening to direct critical
feedback.

Now, having unloaded some steam, you can more cleanly and compassionately
acknowledge the other's workload, conflicting priorities, time lines, etc.
and, ultimately, give them a chance to be a problem-solving collaborator.
(In addition, this process is effective with a pattern of less than
satisfactory work performance. With documentation and these
intervention steps, you can let E. know, in a less emotional and more
professional manner, your objective concern and the concrete consequences
for continuing problematic behavior.)

S: I really would like your help in problem-solving. Where are
the obstacles? From your perspective, what needs to be done next?
Let's also do some longer range planning to anticipate similar bottle jams
and to keep us on the same page. In fact, I'd like to meet once/week
until we both are confident you have reasonable control over the various
project elements.

Explore where the other person is coming from; how do they see their
workload demands on time and energy, etc.

S: I know you are working on several important projects concurrently.
Tell me what's on your plate. Then we'll need to set priorities and upgrade
the importance of this branch data project. If you are having a hard time
juggling priorities or if you anticipate a deadline problem, I want to know
ahead of time.

Listen, Learn and Let Go

And once you've engaged in the first four steps, having cleaned up your
inner static, you can do more active and objective listening. Up till
now you've been focusing on your feelings, the effects of the other's
actions, and what response you want from the other person. Now it's
time to not only listen but also acknowledge, when appropriate, that you
hadn't fully understood the other's position or perspective. Let the
other know that you will make modifications in your attitude and actions.
So there's a learning curve for you as well.

And finally, another real benefit of this active listening process is that
you are less likely to hold on to grudges or resentments toward your
"antagonist." You are now ready to let go of any existing anger, hurt
or questionable assumptions.

So, a good IDEA now becomes a communicational IDEAL. This acronym
becomes an interactive process for replacing aggression with assertion by
employing "I" messages and eliminating blaming "You"s, allowing clarity to
subdue hostility. Now you understand how conflict, genuinely and maturely
engaged, can turn antagonists into allies. And, of course, you will also
be...Practicing Safe Stress!

Mark Gorkin, LICSW, "The Stress Doc" ™, a psychotherapist, an
international/Celebrity Cruise Lines speaker, and training/OD consultant for a
myriad of corporations and government agencies. Recently interviewed by the BBC,
the Doc is a syndicated writer and the author of Practice Safe Stress:
Healing and Laughing in the Face of Stress, Burnout & Depression. In 2003,
Mark received the inaugural National Association of Social Workers-Metro-DC
Chapter’s Social Work Entrepreneur Award. The Doc is also America Online’s
"Online Psychohumorist" ™ running his weekly "Shrink Rap and Group Chat" on
AOL/Digital City. See his award winning, USA Today Online "HotSite" --
www.stressdoc.com (recently cited as a workplace resource by National Public
Radio (NPR). Email for his monthly newsletter showcased on List-a-Day.com. Mark
is an advisor to The Bright Side ™ -- www.the-bright-side.org -- a
multi-award winning mental health resource. For more info on the Doc’s speaking
and training programs and products, email stressdoc@aol.com or call
202-232-8662